At 3:04 PM 2/16/96, Eva Durant wrote:
>What is the actual evidence, besides a few ancient>legends and similarity in language? What are>these similarities? What about the finns?>Did they traveland were the same as hungarians>in that uygur place?, and been related>to those civilised sumerians? How did they go>back to their nomad ways, after being urban>for so long in mezopotamia?>>Eva Durant
Uygur? Hungarians got their name in western languages because of their
close connection with the Onogur, Bulgar-Onogur tribes in the 7th and 8th
centuries. Otherwise they were called Mag-yars. The two words mean the
same: man.
Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

>>The Finns initially went with the Magyars from the Tigris Euphrates>northward after the defeat by the Elamites (about 1950 BCE), and apparently>kept going north at that point. While there was kind of an exodus led by>Sze chen (for real) of a large portion of the people that apparently ended>up in what is now northwest China, not all the people went that way. Some>retreated simply into the mountain areas of West Asia into city states that>persisted awhile longer, others went into Russia and gradually kept going.
Where did you read this nonsense? Where is the evidence?
>>>The Magyars probably never became as nomadic as has sometimes been thought.>Western China and the deserts of Khotan, etc. have numerous layers of oasis>towns, etc. going back more than 2 millenia. However, water and climate>conditions changed, and populations grew, causing dislocation and expansion.>Sisa's book, also, notes that the recently discovered early Magyar grave>sites indicate the Magyars migrated with all the trappings of settled>agriculture--including bags of seeds, in addition to herd animals. They also>had very sophisticated metallurgy.
Who discovered the graveside? Wo dated them? By what method?
>>The movements of the Sumerian-Magyars can probably be better compared with>the expansion of the Eastern seaboard populations in the Americas, westward.>Small towns around meeting halls and general stores appeared almost as soon>as the first farmhouses. Immigration westward usually took place in large>groups of wagons of families--and animals, and seeds and cuttings, just like>what Sisa describes. When lands played out, or there were droughts, entire>towns moved, also.
You cannot compare 19th century migration and migration B.C.
>By the way, the "proto-Sumerians" actually started out about 8-9000 BCE in>the Balkans, Danube Basin, around the Black Sea and Turkey. However>according to two "Scientific American" articles on climate in 1978 and 1987,>and James Burke's television series, "The Weather Machine," there were>climate and water changes about 5,000 BCE that forced them southward.
Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

Indo-European languages and Finno-Ugrian languages are separate for at
least in the past 20,000 years; the proto-Finno-Ugrians settled on a narrow
region south of the iceline between the Carpathians and the Ural 13 to
15,000 years ago; languages began to separate about 8000 years ago;
The predecessors of the magyars descended from the Finno-Ugrian family of
the Ural branch of the Ural-altaic peoples. The younger Ural branch
developed into Samoyad and Finno-Ugrian. Finno-Ugrian branched off into (1)
=46inn, with its Lapp, Finno-Estonian, Tsermiss and Mordvin families; (2)
Permish, with Zyrian and Votyak; and (3) Ugrian, with its Magyar, Vogul and
Ostyak groups. The Altaic branch comprised Turks, Mongols, and
Manshu-Tungus, and their descendents.
6000-5000 B.C. Ural People moves from the lands between the Caspean Sea and
the Aral Sea to Western Siberia; The Finno-Ugrian groups and the Samoieds
lived in the Ural region from the fifth millennium. According to a theory
(Kelteminar) the Ugors originated in central Asia, south of the Aral Sea,
about 4000 B.C.
4000-3300 B.C.
Western Siberia, New Stone Age neolithic age ;home of the Ural People, the
so-called Finno- Ugrian peoples; Kozlov Period, Ugors of the Ob were
common ancesters; the FU only knew one domesticated animal: the dog; 3000
B.C.; copper, horses, agriculture; But some claim that that the
=46inno-Ugrians never lived in Western Siberia
There are numerous theories about the origin of the Hungarian people.
According to one, there was a Europid type people on the northwestern
boundary of China, at the Mongolian border. Before the third millennium
they left this place for the west arriving to Western Siberia in the second
millennium. There is no general agreement on when the Ural group broke up.
it sems that the Volga-Kama areas became the gathering place of all the
=46inno-Ugrian peoples. Here they persued gathering, hunting, fishing.
Hungarian words of Finno-Ugric origin west of the Ural: feny=F6, nyir. East
of the Ural: m=E9h, m=E9z,, nemeslazac; everybody agrees that before the
breakup the FU lived together in the 4th and 3rd millennium; lived on the
the two sides of the Ural Mountains, along the Ob and the Volga-Kama
region; Chernetsov: originally from the Aral Sea area; the FU moved
westward from the Ural-Kama regions; homes: dog-outs; metallic objects
imported from the south
3000 B.C. Kama River valley is populated
3000-2500 B.C. Kama River; New Stone Age, early phase; end of Finno-Ugric
unity; From the third millennium the Finno-Ugrians lived the the
Volga-Kama area.men were Europid, women were mildly Mongoloid, flat-faced;
settled along waterways; fishing and shipping; hunting, dogs; copper,
spinning and weaving; story of Hunor and Magyar; chasing of the deer; Turul
bird; the Finno-Ugrians of the Volga-Kama area settled along the rivers
from the beginning of the third millennium; during this millennium they
were fishing, hunting, gathering;
2100-1900 B.C. last phase of the New Stone Age period of the Finno-Ugric peo=
ples
2000-1600 B.C. agriculture and animal husbandry in Western Siberian
=46inno-Ugrian lands; ; from the 2nd mil.; cooper age, bronze age to mid-2nd
mil.B.C.;
2000 B.C. circa; Finns' westward movement from the Kama valley
1600-1500 B.C. Horseback riding Finno-Ugrians; majority practice
agriculture; The break-up of the Finno-Ugrians took place in the middle of
the second millennium; in touch with the Iranians until 1600 B.C.; 26
Hungarian words exists of Old-Iranian origin;
1000 B.C. proto-Hungarians: adoption of nomad life-style, second
millennium; around 1000 the weather warmed up, Ugors of the Ob moved north
to the taiga; Hungarians moved south, steppe, became nomads living in
tents; horses and sheep, sold to Chinese, Persian, Greek traders; from the
Scythians and Sarmatians learnt to work iron; felt tents, iron swords;
reflex bow, sculpt stylized animals; religious symbols; this was the
Scythian-Sarmatian period of their history; by the middle of the second
millennium they had horses, cows, goats and domesticated hogs; they sowed
wheat (spelt, German wheat, Triticum spelta), millet, metal processing,
bronze tools, copper jewelry silver coated, silver (religious
significance);
The Hungarian language is part of the Ural language family
belonging to the Finno-Ugrian sub-division. Hungarian gradually acquired an
independence of its own in the first part of the first millennium before
Christ Ugors: Magyars, Ostiak (Chantik), Vogul (Udmort) Volga group:
Mordvin, Cheremis (Marik) Baltic Finns: Finns, Estonians, Kariala, etc.
About 1000 words of Ural and Finno-Ugrian origin are still part of the
living Hungarian languages and 70-75% of the words in use today are derived
from Finno-Ugrian roots. The language was enriched during the earliest
history of the Hungarian people with Iranian (ancient, old, middle),
various Turkish and eastern Slav languages.
1000-500 B.C. Clans were the basic political units until the first
millennium B.C.; completion of the break-up of Finno-Ugrian unity; separate
Hungarian group, around 1000 B.C. Ugrian branch; between the middle Volga
and the Urals; Kama River; the community split into the Finnish and Ugrian
communities; Ugrian divided into present-day Ugrians of the Ob Velley, the
Voguls (Man'shi) and Ostyaks (Chanti), and into proto-Hungarians; around
500 B.C.; all agree that the FU lived in Europe; the U lived further east
than the F; Volga bend, both banks; the FU were skilled pottery makers,
weavers, spinners; bred livestock and tilled the land with hoes; leartned
to breed horses; 5th c.: began to use bronse and later iron; primitive
agriculture and livestock did not replace hunting and fishing, fur-bearing
animals; connection between the Ob-Ugors and the proto-Hungarians was
broken in the first half of the first mi.
contact with tribes, Scythians and Sarmatians who spoke Iranian; Greek to
the south, Armenians in the Caucasus, Iranians south of Lake Aral; southern
trade, Khorezm; nomads of the Pontic steppes acting acting as middlemen;
fur trade led to accumulation of property;
400-300 B.C
. The proto-Hungarians move from Western Siberia to Magna Hungaria
(Bashkiria) between the Kama and the Ural rivers; some believe that took
place between 500 and 600 A.D. the whole movement from Siberia is denied by
most historians, original home at the Kama river; The Ugors stayed in
Western Siberia while the Finns crossed the Ural Mountains. At the end of
the first millennium the Ugors, who by now used horses and became nomads,
were broken into two parts by the invasion of their lands by the Huns and
Sarmatians. The proto-Hungarians crossed the Ural and settled in Baskiria,
west of the Volga River. The Ugor groups, from which the Hungarians
separated, were located in the eastern and southern wings of the
=46inno-Ugrian homeland. They were in close contact with the Bashkirs. The
Gyarmat and Jen=F6 tribal names correspond to the Bashkirian Jurmati and
Jenej groups. Hungarians around the Kama river were the ones who broke
away from the the Ob-Ugric group, mixed with Iranian groups until Turkic
group pushed out the Iranians; latest in the 4th c. B.C.; The ancient home
of the Hungarians was at the confluence of the Volga and the Kama rivers at
the eastern border of mixed forests and west of the taiga. They came here
from western Siberia during the second half of the fourth century because
of the Huns. Most of the Hungarians than lived on the western bank of the
Volga from where they departed around 750.
Peter I. Hidas, Montreal

Dear Colleague,
After five weeks in Slovakia, Hungary and Holland, I have returned with a
number of plans.
The first (attached) is written to the Judges of the International Court of
Justice about the Danube. I would be grateful, if you too would write similar
letters, not only to the president of the court, but also to some of the
judges, particularly the ones, who represent your country of residence.
I have been assured by Mr. Arthur Th. Witteveen, the secretary of the court,
that all personal letters that are addressed to the judges in The Hague, will
be forwarded to them. If you prefer the fax to regular mail, you can fax your
letter to: nnn-nn-nnnn-928. The use of E-Mail is not recommended.
In the coming days, I will also ask you to help in other projects, I just did
not want to overload you with several tasks at once.
I do thank you in advance for taking the time to make sure that justice will
be delivered on the Danube. Please realize that your letters DID contribute
to Carl Bildt's visit to Slovakia and the hundreds of letters we have sent to
Richard Hoolbroke DID contribute to his decision to visit Romania. The same
thing is true about the Danube. Please do write!
With best personal regards: Bela Liptak
PS: It will take a few days for me before I can read my personal E-mail.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Honorable Mohammed Bedjaoui
President of the International Court of Justice
Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ Den Haag
The Netherlands
February ??, 1996
Your Honor,
For the first time in history, your Court will decide on an environmental
lawsuit, which effects all mankind. In ruling on the future of the Danube,
your challenge is much more than to interpret a construction contract or to
resolve a conflict between the self-interests of two nations.
It is up to you and your fellow judges, to make a precedent, by giving
full weight to the interests of mankind. It is up to you to rule, that
rivers, forests and oceans are not the sole properties of nations, that
nations do not have the right to destroy unique ecosystems, which have
survived since the last Ice Age.
The ecosystem of the Szigetköz is dying due to the tragic drop in
ground-water levels. This region, which was the oxygen supply of the Danube,
has been destroyed, the lung of the river has been cut out. At this very
moment, shipping on the Danube is at a standstill because both sluices are
broken. In one, the crown gate has been miss-designed, while the other was
not designed to handle ice. The whole structure is leaking and a major
accident is waiting to happen. The conditions have become so unbearable that
two thirds of the populations of Dobrohost, Vojka and Bodiky have already
fled from the region.
For the above reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to allow the
representatives of the allied environmental organizations to act as a third
party representing the interests of mankind and to consider the Compromise
Plan (attachment), as a possible blueprint for the resolution of this case.
Respectfully yours,
your name, address, organization, if any
cc: The Honorable Vice-President Stephen M. Schwebel of the United States of
America, The Honorable Judges: Shigeru Oda of Japan, Gilbert Guillaume of
France, Mohamed Shahabuddeen of Guyana, Christopher G. Weeramantry of Sri
Lanka, Raymond Ranjeva of Madagascar, Géza Herczegh of Hungary, Shi Jiuyong
of China, Carl-August Fleischhauer of Germany, Abdul G. Koroma of Sierra
Leone, Vladlen S. Vereshchetin of the Russian Federation, Luigi Ferrari Bravo
of Italy and Rosalyn Higgins of the United Kingdom, The Honorable Registrar:
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina of Columbia.

Dear Colleague,
After five weeks in Slovakia, Hungary and Holland, I have returned with a
number of plans.
The first (attached) is written to the Judges of the International Court of
Justice about the Danube. I would be grateful, if you too would write similar
letters, not only to the president of the court, but also to some of the
judges, particularly the ones, who represent your country of residence.
I have been assured by Mr. Arthur Th. Witteveen, the secretary of the court,
that all personal letters that are addressed to the judges in The Hague, will
be forwarded to them. If you prefer the fax to regular mail, you can fax your
letter to: nnn-nn-nnnn-928. The use of E-Mail is not recommended.
In the coming days, I will also ask you to help in other projects, I just did
not want to overload you with several tasks at once.
I do thank you in advance for taking the time to make sure that justice will
be delivered on the Danube. Please realize that your letters DID contribute
to Carl Bildt's visit to Slovakia and the hundreds of letters we have sent to
Richard Hoolbroke DID contribute to his decision to visit Romania. The same
thing is true about the Danube. Please do write!
With best personal regards: Bela Liptak
PS: It will take a few days for me before I can read my personal E-mail.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Honorable Mohammed Bedjaoui
President of the International Court of Justice
Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ Den Haag
The Netherlands
February ??, 1996
Your Honor,
For the first time in history, your Court will decide on an environmental
lawsuit, which effects all mankind. In ruling on the future of the Danube,
your challenge is much more than to interpret a construction contract or to
resolve a conflict between the self-interests of two nations.
It is up to you and your fellow judges, to make a precedent, by giving
full weight to the interests of mankind. It is up to you to rule, that
rivers, forests and oceans are not the sole properties of nations, that
nations do not have the right to destroy unique ecosystems, which have
survived since the last Ice Age.
The ecosystem of the Szigetkvz is dying due to the tragic drop in
ground-water levels. This region, which was the oxygen supply of the Danube,
has been destroyed, the lung of the river has been cut out. At this very
moment, shipping on the Danube is at a standstill because both sluices are
broken. In one, the crown gate has been miss-designed, while the other was
not designed to handle ice. The whole structure is leaking and a major
accident is waiting to happen. The conditions have become so unbearable that
two thirds of the populations of Dobrohost, Vojka and Bodiky have already
fled from the region.
For the above reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to allow the
representatives of the allied environmental organizations to act as a third
party representing the interests of mankind and to consider the Compromise
Plan (attachment), as a possible blueprint for the resolution of this case.
Respectfully yours,
your name, address, organization, if any
cc: The Honorable Vice-President Stephen M. Schwebel of the United States of
America, The Honorable Judges: Shigeru Oda of Japan, Gilbert Guillaume of
France, Mohamed Shahabuddeen of Guyana, Christopher G. Weeramantry of Sri
Lanka, Raymond Ranjeva of Madagascar, Giza Herczegh of Hungary, Shi Jiuyong
of China, Carl-August Fleischhauer of Germany, Abdul G. Koroma of Sierra
Leone, Vladlen S. Vereshchetin of the Russian Federation, Luigi Ferrari Bravo
of Italy and Rosalyn Higgins of the United Kingdom, The Honorable Registrar:
Eduardo Valencia-Ospina of Columbia.

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:
>Beside that>I don't see any reason why the Germans can be excluded from the so>called 'western civilization', I do not think that any bellingerent of>the WWI was more barbarian than any other. The whole war was a barbarian,>senseless thing where nobody fought for any 'great values' or
'civilization'
>but for selfish interests.>>Janos>>>
Janos, I couldn't agree with you any more on that last sentence you wrote
-- the whole war was barbarous. But then again, you and I have the benefit
of over 75 years of hindsight, including a much wider spread, much
bloodier Second World War. But that doesn't make applying our viewpoint
from 1996 back onto the people of that era is historically accurate. The
sad truth is that millions marched off to war and certain death in August,
1914, thinking exactly what I posited -- that they were going to defend
western civilization. And for the majority of Americans in early 1917,
western civilization meant Britain and France, not Germany and not
Austria-Hungary.
Sam Stowe

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:
> Gee Sam, you really have to>watch that temper, it's burning up more things than my husband's errant>amateur radio antennas. I'd really hate to have to get a _third_
controller
>card or hard-drive in less than six months... ;-)>>
Honest, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker, it's not me! I swear!
On to your point about the American press in World War I. I've looked for
Rodman's book and haven't located it yet, but will give it a look-through
when I get hold of it. I'll also take a look at Davison's piece. Maybe Eva
Balogh knows something of these two professors and can enlighten us.
Undoubtedly some payment of journalists for favorable coverage must have
transpired during the war by both sides in the European conflict. But to
be effective, it would have had to have been widespread and coordinated.
I've never read anything in the scholarly press outlining any such British
conspiracy. If they did manage to gain control of the American media
during the war, it constitutes one of the greatest acts of foreign
subversion of all times. And also, if they did, why didn't they keep up
that control of the American media after the war? Seems like they would
have used it to blunt some of the criticism leveled at them, the French
and the Italians by the American press during the Versailles Treaty talks.
Sam Stowe

In article >, "Eva S. Balogh"
> writes:
>Of course, I think that Ms. Durant is an extremely naive person, but>she is no longer a teenager and it is unlikely that she will change her>views. (As I mentioned once, with age we all become a little more>conservative, but that generalization doesn't apply to Eva Durant.) So,
the
>best thing is leave Ms Durant in her happy state of dreaming about the>coming of the REAL thing.>> Eva Balogh
I take it we can put you down as a "Yes" vote in our little straw poll.
You know, I'd be happy to leave her in her happy state of dreaming if she
didn't sally forth at every opportunity to spout out this noxious garbage.
But this isn't soc.culture.durant and I figure if she's willing to flog
that creaking old nag ideology of hers around the clubhouse turn every
chance she gets, she can take the heat for it.
Sam Stowe
P.S. -- Here's a question for the group at large -- why does almost
everyone who challenges Durant do so on economic grounds? She's pleased as
punch to babble on ad nauseum when you do. But when I ask her about the
impacts of Marxism-Leninism on human thought, belief and morals, she cooks
off like a hand grenade. Am I the only one on here who isn't locked into a
rigid economics-oriented view of the human condition? (Szalai, get your
fingers off the keyboard right now, young man!)
P.S.S. -- Thanks for the info on political conditions in Hungary. That's
the kind of stuff I love reading about on here.

I am writing a report about Budapest for my company. I would like to
include some statistics on the number of tourists who visit Budapest each
year. If possible, I would like to break down the tourists by nationality.
Can anyone give me a good approximation? Even better, can anyone direct me
to a good reference source? I would appreciate any help in this matter.
Thanks,
Dennis

Reputation...shmeputation...the Serbs know that the world has a short
memory.
When there is one apple left on the table, some people politely defer to
others and do not take it because they have been trained to share and to
think of others.
The greedy kid comes along and just grabs the apple and walks away without
a second thought.
We can moralize all we want, but.....
In the end, the grabbers come out ahead.
The Serbs did suffer some due to the economic "shunning ". But Milosevic
is the victor.
He played the Western Powers like silly pawns.
Clinton caved in to Milosevic by lifting sanctions on Yugoslavia and
sending troops
to enforce the territorial gains made by the Serbs. Plus, I am certain
that Clinton sweetened the pot by making cash incentives available.
Do you think reputation matters all that much?
Are the enslaved people of Tibet to feel better that China used to have
a blackeye? Is there suffering any less?
If we follow Durant's thinking any time a country is invaded and occupied,
the conquered people should forget all about taking back their lands.
Eva D. says that they should just focus on more "important" things.
In a different world, not a human one, borders might not be important.
I might not need to lock my car door. Banks might not need to lock their
vaults.
The fact is that there will always be diverse human personalities (unless
ultra liberal P.C'ers get their way); some aggressive, some passive, some
altruistic, some greedy.
"Good fences make good neighbors"

We are are data communications company specializing in networking products
looking for a distributor/representative in Hungary, Czeck Republic and
Slovakia. Our products include routers, PADs, FRADs, CSU/DSUs, test
equipment. We specialize in TCP/IP-IPX, ISDN, Frame Relay, X.25, ATM and
wireless.
I will be taking a trip in the summer and would like to meet with
prospective business associates. Please E-Mail if you are interested, or
can recommend someone.
We are also interested in importing data comms products.
Sincerely
Joe Lenyi
PS - Is there a data comms show or stamp show in Budapest during the late
spring/summer?

I am trying to help my daughter learn more about Hungarian
immigration to the United States. When it occured and where most of
the settlement took place. We are having difficulting good,
specific, sources for information. Any assistance in pointing her in
the right direction would be most welcome. She has found some of
your most recent postings informative about current discussions
about Hungary.

> =======================================================
At Idopont: Sun Feb 11 21:05:55 EST 1996 HUNGARY #576, Eva Balogh wrote:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> We--again I am talking>about the educated strata to which the subscribers of Forum in Hungary also>belong in their own country--have some idea about homosexuality in general>terms, as opposed to a bunch of ignorant rednecks (sorry, here is the>expression again!) who kept telling me and Miklos Voros (Haraszti) that>homosexuality is a matter of choice! Both Miklos and I desperately tried to>explain that it wasn't but to no avail.
I don't recall anyone here saying that homosexuality is a matter of choice.
Of course it's not! Would anyone call cancer a matter of choice?
> And there is a small brave>group in Hungary, but, if I recall properly, one judge forbid to use the>word "meleg" ("warm" equivalent of "gay") in the name of either the>association or its newspaper. Now, another judge ruled differently. (I don't>know anything about Roman/Hungarian-Roman law, but I am always amused that>one judge can rule this way and another that way--there seems to be no such>thing as precedence!).> I have spent two-thirds of my life outside of Hungary and I>guess I no longer can think the way "most Hungarians" think on the Forum.
Eva, where did you spend that two-third? Living in the US (as I presume you
are)
you should not be surprised that two judges can rule differently in seemingly
like cases. A different ruling by another judge does not by itself establish
a precedent even in the US.
Regards,
Ferenc

>Dear Doug;>>At 10:34 AM 2/16/96 -0800, you wrote:>>>At 12:01 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:>>>>>>> When talking about the billions wasted on military expenditures>>>>lets not forget that spent by the former Soviet and the current communist>>>>regimes. Capitalism has no patent on gross military budgets.>>>>>>Nobody had a patent on gross military budgets. All military budgets are>gross.>>>>>>Joe Szalai>>>>>>I'm certainly hallucinating, but do Uncle Joe and I agree on something?>>>>>>Doug Hormann>>>>Well I did warn everybody about the well-meaning friends and significant>others with the Alice B. Toklas brownies, riesling, beer and saki... Are>you also seeing 3-foot tall samurai warriors walking around your computer room
?
>;-)>>Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker>San Jose, CA, USA>>>>>N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker - - San Jose, CA
Only if you include my three foot tall two and one-half year old son. He
seems to be on the fast track to either being a samuria warrior, or a Rugby
Union player. :-) Actually, I suppose that I just have an affinity
towards finding the common ground. Besides, saki gives me a headache.
Regards,
Doug Hormann

>At 03:37 PM 2/16/96 -0400, Janos Czifra wrote after quoting a description of>Richard Holbrooke's visit to Romania:>>>Richard Holbrooke has certainly got a lot of balls to say that we should>>forget>>what happened and what is happening and sign the agreement, but he can say>>these things because we are a weak lot, the Hungarians. He could care less>>about the 1.6 million ethnic Hungarians. This is a total non-issue to>>Holbrooke>>and the US.>> I must say that that wasn't my reading of the release. From the>description it seemed to me that Holbrooke was quite even-handed. (Actually>it would be very odd if he were anti-Hungarian, considering that he just got>married to Kati Marton at the American Embassy in Budapest!) He is simply>trying to move the talks from a total deadlock by urging the parties to find>some middle road.> Eva Balogh
Eva, I too read that in the report. Having watched ethnic conflicts serve
as the basis for atrocities in Eastern Europe and the Balkans for
centuries, perhaps the only solution is to make a clean break from the
past. The problem of course is that it's easier for people like me or
Holbrooke to be altruistic when we aren't the ones directly effected.
However, I have no optimism for a solution in the near term and firmly
believe that those advocating realignment of borders are setting themselves
up for another Bosnia.
Regards,
Doug Hormann

>>>Nobody had a patent on gross military budgets. All military budgets are>gross.>>>>>>Joe Szalai>>At 01:34 PM 2/16/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:>>>I'm certainly hallucinating, but do Uncle Joe and I agree on something?>>>>>>Doug Hormann>>No need to become incontinent, Doug. Besides, the number of times you and I>will agree, you'll be able to count on one finger. That is, if you're not>using it already, to tally your IQ score.>>Joe Szalai
Uncle Joe,
I'm finding my new name for you fits better all the time. After
all wasn't it the original Uncle Joe that decided that anyone who disagreed
with Marxism/Leninism had to be mentally defective? Perhaps you have a
cell...oops..I mean hospital room already picked out for those such as
myself who have the terribly bad manners to disagree with you.
Dasvedanya tovarish,
Doug Hormann

At 11:06 AM 2/17/96 -0800, Doug wrote, commenting on what I had said earlier
about Holbrooke's words concerning the Hungaro-Romanian negotiations:
>> I must say that that wasn't my reading of the release. From the>>description it seemed to me that Holbrooke was quite even-handed. (Actually>>it would be very odd if he were anti-Hungarian, considering that he just got>>married to Kati Marton at the American Embassy in Budapest!) He is simply>>trying to move the talks from a total deadlock by urging the parties to find>>some middle road.>> Eva Balogh>>>Eva, I too read that in the report. Having watched ethnic conflicts serve>as the basis for atrocities in Eastern Europe and the Balkans for>centuries, perhaps the only solution is to make a clean break from the>past. The problem of course is that it's easier for people like me or>Holbrooke to be altruistic when we aren't the ones directly effected.>However, I have no optimism for a solution in the near term and firmly>believe that those advocating realignment of borders are setting themselves>up for another Bosnia
In addition to my interest in diplomatic history I have also been
fascinated by nationalism and related subjects. In fact, my first
publication ever was on the Hungarian Soviet Republic's nationality policy.
Having said that let me reiterate my deep, deep skepticism concerning
solution to this problem, especially in Eastern Europe. As long as they are
nation states a happy coexistence of nationalities is simply a naive dream.
The very existence of a nation state presupposes homogeneity but in Eastern
Europe "nation states" emerged without the prerequisite homogeneity. Why do
we have patches of this or that nationality in Eastern Europe, much more so
than in the West? I think that Eastern Europe's relative backwardness has a
great deal to do with it. Geography may also be a factor. The Turkish
presence for centuries may be added to the list. But whatever the cause,
Eastern Europe ended up with a patchwork of nationalities. Yet, at the same
time, as a result of Western intellectual influences Eastern European
nations fell under the spell of modern nationalism--it all began sometime
after the French Revolution and by the 1830s it was in full bloom in the
more "advanced" nations: the Czechs, the Hungarians, the Croats and Slovaks.
(For convenience's sake, I am ignoring Poland, which is an entirely
different case. I am mostly talking about people in the former Habsburg
Empire.) From them, it spread to the "less advanced" Romanians, Serbs,
Bulgarians and so on and so forth. All of these people built historical
myths around themselves: each had its own glorious history but these
glorious national histories more often than not were incompatable with each
other. Each nation in the Habsburg Empire had its grievances, including the
German Austrians and the Hungarians, who were supposedly the master nations
of the empire. The German Austrians felt cheated by the Hungarians; the
Hungarians considered themselves victims of the Austrian Germans; and
everybody else felt victimized by either the Germans or the Hungarians, or
both. This is a terrible historical baggage which very few outsider will
understand and even if they do, an American will say: and what? forget it!
start again. Because, let's face it, even I find it difficult to understand
why the Serbs hate so much the "Muslims" because, after all, these "Muslims"
are also Serbs. It is very hard indeed for anyone to understand that in the
twentieth century anyone can get so riled up over the fact that a Muslim
Serb's ancestor sometime in 1512, let's say, converted to Islam! For Pete's
sake, one is inclined to say, "are you mad?"
They might be considered mad from the vantage point of the West, but
to them it is all very real. And let's just take the case of Yugoslavia and
its history since 1918. Surely, Serbia in 1914 didn't go to war in order to
achieve a Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, as Yugoslavia was
originally named. No, they went to war because they wanted to have a Greater
Serbia: they wanted to unite all Serbs in one happy state: the Serbs of
Hungary, the Serbs of Croatia, and, of course, the Serbs of Bosnia. It
didn't work out this way but between the two world wars the Serbs tried very
hard to have a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia and accordingly they ran the
country as a centralized nation state. Then came Tito and the communists who
said: Oh, this is all wrong. We have to have a federated
republic--everything will be fine then. Well, not everything was fine then.
And we arrived at ethnic cleansing. The Serbs came to the terrible
realization that the only way to have a "real nation state" is to purge, get
rid of all non-Serbs. Sounds terrible. Ethnic cleansing. But really, this is
not much worse than what the Czechs did in 1945. The only difference is that
Benes did it with the blessing of the Allies and the Serbs without it. Benes
cleared the Czech lands of 3.5 million Germans and was ready to get rid of
all the Hungarians as well. Both groups had been living in the area ever
since the 10th and the 11th centuries.
Not that I suggest ethnic cleansing, but realistically, we cannot
except peace and quiet in that area as long as we have multi-national
states. Because let's face it, the 1.6 million Hungarians in Romania, for
example, will always be a disgruntled minority as long as there is a
Romanian nation state. The situation is the same in Slovakia. And I think
the Slovaks and the Romanians know it. Sure, Hungary is not going to attack
either countries, but I think both the Slovaks and the Romanians don't quite
trust their Hungarian citizens. Deep down, or not so deep down, what they
want is a homogeneous nation state: only Slovaks in Slovakia and only
Romanians in Romania. And the Hungarian minorities are in the way.
Solution. I don't have any. On this list at one point I suggested
population exchange--and of course, territorial exchanges as well--in order
to make three truly nation states but even that is simply an intellectual
exercise. Since Hungary is already a homogeneous country only Slovakia and
Romania would have to give up territories and, of course, this would be
unacceptable to them. The other possibility is to try the impossible and
hope that with European integration the Eastern European countries will give
up the idea of nation states. But I see a rought road ahead: the very idea
of losing "national identity" in the sea of some European Union is terribly
worrisome to some of the more nationalistic elements even in Hungary. I say
"even in Hungary," because I suspect that Slovak and Romanian nationalism is
a great deal more ferocious than the Hungarian.
Eva Balogh

At 02:16 PM 2/17/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:
>Uncle Joe,>> I'm finding my new name for you fits better all the time. After>all wasn't it the original Uncle Joe that decided that anyone who disagreed>with Marxism/Leninism had to be mentally defective? Perhaps you have a>cell...oops..I mean hospital room already picked out for those such as>myself who have the terribly bad manners to disagree with you.
Doug,
Okos enged, szama'r szenved.
Joe Szalai

At 07:57 PM 2/17/96 -0500, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>The very existence of a nation state presupposes homogeneity but in Eastern>Europe "nation states" emerged without the prerequisite homogeneity. Why do>we have patches of this or that nationality in Eastern Europe, much more so>than in the West? I think that Eastern Europe's relative backwardness has a>great deal to do with it. Geography may also be a factor. The Turkish>presence for centuries may be added to the list. But whatever the cause,>Eastern Europe ended up with a patchwork of nationalities.
The development of the nation state DID NOT presuppose homogeneity. Eastern
Europe was not the only place to 'have patches of this or that nationality'.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has English, Welsh, Scotch
and Irish people.
France has Bretons, Basques, Germans.
Spain has the Basques and the Catalans.
Turkey has Greeks, Tartars, Armenians, Albanians, Kurds and others.
Switzerland has French, German, Italian and Romanish.
Belgium has Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Walloons.
There are many other examples of nation states that are not homogenous.
Russia is an obvious example. The continent of Africa is another.
Where did you get the idea that the modern nation state has homogeneity as a
prerequisite? Perhaps homogeneity is a prerequisite for conflict but it's
not a prerequisite for a nation state.
Joe Szalai

At 12:18 PM 2/14/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:
>>>> 1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.>> This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.>>>If it is a democratic decision, than the undemocretic side>starts the fighting. If the majority in favour is overhelming,>local democratic militias are good enough to help to put>in practice that decision. If it happens most places,>there will be no help for the undemocratic element.>But if thet see, that nobody is taking their house and>their luxury items from them, only the things that are>socially useful/wealthproducing, than they propably>decide, that they could live with the new system.
Now you are beginning to scare me.
>And -if Eva Balogh says - they are bursting from creative>ideas, that I'm sure they will be proud to prove, that>that creativity is there without the pile of money>to substansciate it.
The pile of money will be used to finance the "local democratic militias".
Right?
>> Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).>> 2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed>> by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.>> Farkas D. Gabor>>seems to me, that if a vast majority of people are taking>part actively, with the large majority also aware of what they want,>there is a chance for peaceful change. (Velvet revolutions, most>initial steps of revolutions.)
There is a chance. There is also of chance that all readers of this group
will win the lotto jackpot on the same day.
> The problem is to be also>conscious to keep up this activity until and after the>new structures are built.
Let's have lots of seminars or other brainwashing sessions.
> The difference is now, that everyone>will be able to get all the information necessary to make decisions,>the technology exists and it is easy to make everybody always>part of the decisionmaking.>In your old system, the less people know and the further>away from decisionmaking they are, the better - that is>the thinking of the establishment, well learned in the>ways of mass manipulation and publicity of anything but>real information.
We will have the electronic version of Pravda, Scanteia and Nepszabadsag to
give everyone the information "necessary to make decisions". Those who get
or give more than that can be sent to construction projects (see my answer
to Joe Szalai).
Farkas D. Gabor

At 11:34 AM 2/15/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
>Like two stern schoolmasters, James Doepp and Andras Kornai, doxoligize the>profundity of thought, of their great guru, August von Hayek.>>Just like Marxist scholars, they only except criticism if the critic can>show the chapter and verse of Hayek's oeuvre before they acknowledge that>the critic might be on to something.>>Perhaps I'm not on to anything. I can live with that. But I wonder if the>two scholars can enlighten us if Hayek had anything to say about:>>1) full employment>2) medicare for all>3) old age pensions for all>4) housing/shelter for all>5) affordable higher education for all who are qualified>6) adequate food for all
I know you think I am a Hayekist (or Hayekite?;). I confess that I never
read any of this scholar's works. I agree with you that items 1,2,3,4 and 6
are desireable (but utopistic). However, is it really necessary for all who
qualify to get higher education? The many thousand colleges in the US turn
out millions of graduates with skills no one needs. At a different scale the
same thing is happening in Eastern Europe (except that there enrollment in
colleges with nonmarketable skills is declining).
A more reasonable approach would be to provide vocational training and limit
the number of college graduates to that which the market can bear (through
tougher admission policies, etc.). The market would take care of this but
those whose jobs are in danger (the academia) perpetuate this fraud.
Farkas D. Gabor

At 12:27 AM 2/14/96 -0500,Joe Szalai wrote:
>>>1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.>>That's one way of doing it but there are others.
What other ways? Do you think owners of private property will offer it to
society on their own? Or, perhaps they will just move near large
construction projects (such as the Danube -Black Sea Canal) and become
volunteer canal diggers.
>>This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.>>Did I miss something? Revolutions can indeed be peaceful. Except for>Romania, and several smaller acts of violence, the revolutions in Eastern>Europe and the Soviet Union were peaceful.
I think these examples stink. After all these "revolutions" had the opposite
effect: socialized property got privatized (it is true, that in most cases
into the hands of the descendents of the socializers).
>>>Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).>>The French or the American revolutions wouldn't be good examples, would they?>
Wrong examples again. Didn't the French revolution end in lots of heads
being chopped off? The American one established the SYSTEM that you oppose
so much.
>>2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed>>by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.>>Agreed. So is your problem with social programmes and services, such as>medicare, or is it with un-democratic political systems?
I have no problem with social programs that do not get out of hand. Based on
the results in many countries (USA, Germany and yes, even Canada), I think
that the medicare-type programs should be privately managed. Anything that
is government-managed becomes corrupt and unmanageable.
And yes, I do have problems with un-democratic political systems.
Farkas D. Gabor

At 21:19 17/02/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
<snip snip>
>Where did you get the idea that the modern nation state has homogeneity as a>prerequisite? Perhaps homogeneity is a prerequisite for conflict but it's>not a prerequisite for a nation state.>>Joe Szalai
Dear Joe -
Without going into the merits of the first part of your argument, that last
part really lost me. Considering we're talking about heterogeneity causing
conflicts, and in fact the problems in the Balkans now seem to be a result
of heterogeneity not homogeneity, perhaps you meant a *desire* for
homogeneity may be a prerequisite for conflict? (but don't let me put words
in your microprocessor).
;-)
Yours,
Johanne
e-mail -

At 07:13 17/02/96 -0400, Peter Hidas commented, in response to Eva Durant's
response to my post :
>At 3:04 PM 2/16/96, Eva Durant wrote:>>What is the actual evidence, besides a few ancient>>legends and similarity in language? What are>>these similarities? What about the finns?>>Did they traveland were the same as hungarians>>in that uygur place?, and been related>>to those civilised sumerians? How did they go>>back to their nomad ways, after being urban>>for so long in mezopotamia?>>>>Eva Durant>>Uygur? Hungarians got their name in western languages because of their>close connection with the Onogur, Bulgar-Onogur tribes in the 7th and 8th>centuries. Otherwise they were called Mag-yars. The two words mean the>same: man.>
Dear Mr. Hidas -
I wonder from your comment if you actually bothered to read the excerpt from
Mr. Sisa's book, which I posted. It was not suggested by anyone as far as I
know, least of all me, that the Magyars and Uygurs are one and the same,
only that there may be some kinship between the two peoples, and the idea
has been posited that the Magyars may have actually originated in the area
of Xinjiang.
You have now posted, I believe, four messages in relation to this theme.
But, in none of them have I seen any more evidence or proof of the
hypotheses that you have put forward than Mr. Sisa does. Furthermore, his
book is a popularization, in which one wouldn't really expect to find
extensive footnotes. And furthermore, Sisa doesn't put forward any of those
theses as gospel; he does cite a number of alternatives which have been put
forward by various theorists. Ms. Fa'bos-Becker in her response actually
gave more specifics on the findings of scholars than you have.
It seems to me that all of these ideas are theories, not proven, and I would
like to hear a discussion on the merits of the various theories which have
been put forward.
Some questions for your delectation:
1) What evidence is there that the Finno-Ugrians *originated* in the
vicinity of the Urals? Isn't it just as likely that they may have originated
elsewhere and migrated to that area, and in fact mightn't they have
originated in Central Asia?
2) Why do you say this theory is the favorite of a certain political
faction? Which political faction? Why do you disapprove of it? It sounds to
me like it might be the idea perhaps an anti-establishment faction, perhaps
the "Finno-Ugric theory" is the entrenched theory, but still nevertheless a
theory. Just like the blind men trying to describe an elephant, it seems to
me that ultimate truth is arrived at by developing a theory, testing,
dissemination of the results, and development of new, more sophisticated
theories which better match observed facts.
3) Perhaps the theory of the Sumerian-Magyar kinship is a crock, but
apparently there is a pretty definite linguistic connection. It seems to me
that if there is a connection, it can only be because the two languages
descended from the same root, or the peoples lived in close proximity to one
another for a considerable period of time. Perhaps the Magyars migrated
through Sumerian lands, or perhaps they lived close together in Central Asia
and then diverged.
In any case it does seem to me that all the various theories deserve
consideration and it would be short-sighted to dismiss them out-of-hand.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Yours,
Johanne
e-mail -